Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25

- Free Preparation Discussions

Cisco Exam 300-425 Topic 2 Question 99 Discussion

Actual exam question for Cisco's 300-425 exam

Question #: 99
Topic #: 2

[All 300-425 Questions]

A customer has a single anchor WLC named Anchor

AAnchor A is in a DMZ and provides guest access. The customer wants to deploy an additional anchor controller named Anchor B to provide redundancy if Anchor A fails. Which design approach should be taken for the guest WLAN priority on the foreign WLC for each anchor WLC?

ASet Anchor A to priority 3 and Anchor B to priority 3.

BSet Anchor A to priority 3 and Anchor B to priority 1.

CSet Anchor A to priority 1 and Anchor B to priority 1.

DSet Anchor A to priority 1 and Anchor B to priority 3.

Show Suggested Answer

Suggested Answer: D

by Marget at Sep 19, 2024, 12:03 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium 300-425 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel

Veronica

2 days ago

I see your point, Hannah. Having both anchors at priority 1 would ensure seamless failover in case of Anchor A failure.

upvoted 0 times

...

Hannah

7 days ago

I disagree, I believe setting both Anchor A and Anchor B to priority 1 would be a better approach for redundancy.

upvoted 0 times

...

Vannessa

13 days ago

You know, setting Anchor B to priority 3 is like putting a spare tire on a Ferrari. It just doesn't make sense.

upvoted 0 times

...

Nadine

16 days ago

Option D? Nah, that's just asking for chaos. Anchor B should have the higher priority, like Ellsworth said.

upvoted 0 times

...

Hortencia

18 days ago

C'mon, setting both to priority 1? That's just asking for a traffic jam on the guest network. I'm with Ellsworth on this one.

upvoted 0 times

Bea

2 days ago

Maybe setting Anchor A to priority 3 and Anchor B to priority 1 would be a better option.

upvoted 0 times

...

Raul

8 days ago

I agree, setting both to priority 1 could cause congestion.

upvoted 0 times

...

...

Ellsworth

22 days ago

Priority 3 for both? That's like playing Russian roulette with the guest WLAN. I'd go with option B to ensure Anchor B takes over if Anchor A fails.

upvoted 0 times

Sheron

1 hours ago

Yeah, it's better to be safe than sorry when it comes to guest access.

upvoted 0 times

...

Erick

10 days ago

I agree, having Anchor B as priority 1 makes more sense for redundancy.

upvoted 0 times

...

...

Heike

25 days ago

I think we should set Anchor A to priority 3 and Anchor B to priority 1.

upvoted 0 times

...

az-700 pass4success az-104 200-301 200-201 cissp 350-401 350-201 350-501 350-601 350-801 350-901 az-720 az-305 pl-300

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /pass.php:70) in /pass.php on line 77